Abstract

This paper describes the formalization and application of a methodology to evaluate the safety benefit of countermeasures in the face of uncertainty. To illustrate the methodology, 18 countermeasures for improving safety of at grade railroad crossings (AGRXs) in the Republic of Korea are considered. Akin to “stated preference” methods in travel survey research, the methodology applies random selection and laws of large numbers to derive accident modification factor (AMF) densities from expert opinions. In a full Bayesian analysis framework, the collective opinions in the form of AMF densities (data likelihood) are combined with prior knowledge (AMF density priors) for the 18 countermeasures to obtain ‘best’ estimates of AMFs (AMF posterior credible intervals). The countermeasures are then compared and recommended based on the largest safety returns with minimum risk (uncertainty). To the author's knowledge the complete methodology is new and has not previously been applied or reported in the literature. The results demonstrate that the methodology is able to discern anticipated safety benefit differences across candidate countermeasures. For the 18 at grade railroad crossings considered in this analysis, it was found that the top three performing countermeasures for reducing crashes are in-vehicle warning systems, obstacle detection systems, and constant warning time systems.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.